list_topics_for_law

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state what the tool returns (subjects/topics from a controlled vocabulary) but does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or edge cases. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool, but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, with the primary action in the first sentence and a practical use case in the second. Every word contributes value, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, the input, and the practical benefit. It does not detail the output format, but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema, this is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the only parameter (law_id), and the schema already includes a regex pattern and example. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond confirming the parameter is a law identifier. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function: returning controlled-vocabulary subjects/topics associated with a specific norm (law). The verb 'Devuelve' and resource 'materias/temas... asociados a una norma' make the purpose specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_matters_table which likely returns the full table.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Útil para entender la temática de una ley y encontrar filtros para búsquedas relacionadas.' This provides clear use cases but does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.